<p>Do you think it just takes time and studying or do you have to be born with a certain time of mind set?</p>
<p>It probably is beyond some people. I believe the SAT is a very coachable/trainable test. But even so, there is the concept of talent. Part of why I think some people will never get to a 2400 is just the speed element of the test–some people just work quicker than others.</p>
<p>I watch people with obvious talent learn new piano pieces, and am amazed at how quickly they can do it. I have virtually no talent, and it is painstakingly slow to learn anything. Talent is real, and I believe that no amount of dogged effort can replace it.</p>
<p>The SAT doesn’t ask you to do anything that can’t be learned, so yeah, I think it is possible for (almost) anyone to get a 2400. However, some people would need much much much more practice than others.</p>
<p>Yeah pretty much in life is a factor of innate ability AND hardwork. It would be way harder for some, but eventually they would reach that beautiful 2400</p>
<p>^ How do you reconcile that with the fact that many students plateau at scores well below 2400 no matter how much and effectively they prepare?</p>
<p>I would say time is a major contribution to the plateau effect. People just run out of time (test-wise, who would want to take the SAT if it doesn’t count for anything?) before they can reach the 2400. </p>
<p>But some people just don’t have the level of skill to do it, I would say however, if given enough time, people who are scoring in the 2200+ range can eventually reach that 2400 if they are given enough time.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The essence of plateauing is that one is no longer improving; in other words, time is then irrelevant.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree that most high scorers would get 2400 if they were given the test many times. Among a group of ~2200 scorers and where “success” is getting 2400 at least once, I speculate that you would probably hit a 50% success rate after giving the test to each student about fifteen times. </p>
<p>Of course, this could be achieved with, for example, a group of ~1500 scorers as well, though it would probably take many thousands of administrations before a 50% success rate was reached; clearly, luck is almost the sole factor at that point. Contrast both of these scenarios with the group that has actually earned 2400 on an official administration, many of whom were consistently scoring 2380-2400 on their latest practice exams.</p>
<p>I think that getting a 2400 on the SAT involves a little bit of innate intelligence - if a person is consistently scoring 16-1700s, I would think it’s very unlikely that any amount of preparation can get them to increase their score by 7-800 points. On the other hand, if people are already around 2200, I think it’s very possible that a little bit of work could get them up to a 2400. The thing with the SAT is that there is such a wide variety of things that could be tested (say, vocab words) so pure studying and memorization of them wouldn’t really guarantee a great score due to just getting unlucky and not seeing the words you studied.</p>
<p>People stop improving their scores when they perfect a certain test-taking technique that’s served them well so far, and fail to recognize the need for a new one.</p>
<p>I strongly believe that the only limitations people face come from ineffective preparation. Many people assume that what works for the average student will work for them too, and persist with learning techniques whose flaws are exposed beyond a certain level.</p>
<p>Or they just don’t practice enough. A senior who’s taken the SAT 5 times and can’t score anything above 1850 may very well reach 2400 after five more years of intensive preparation–only that’s never gonna happen for obvious reasons.</p>
<p>Most people will never approach anywhere close to 2400. Indeed, you need a certain amount of intelligence to achieve it.</p>
<p>^how much intelligence? Do you need to have genius IQ? Hell, I have a 136 IQ, in the 99% btw, but i can’t reach 2300 even after 20 or so tests!</p>
<p>Intelligence is too abstract for measurement. SAT, IQ,…All those are not great indicators for intelligence simply because nothing is a great indicator for intelligence. No such thing exists.</p>
<p>With a 136, I’m sure you can reach 2300. I don’t think you practiced the right way. I have something similar and ended with a 2350 from a 2110.</p>
<p>“But I’m sure if you believe strong enough, and dug deep enough, everyone’s wishes will come true.”</p>
<p>Yes, I just quoted from SpongeBob SquarePants.</p>
<p>The SAT is definately a “trainable” test. As a freshman I got a 164 on my PSAT which was obviously a longshot to a 2400. But after 2 hardcore summers of SAT prep, I landed a 2310 on my SAT on my first try. Realizing that I had MANY moments where I slacked off and wasted more time than I should, theres a possiblity that I could have done better.</p>
<p>Funny thing is that now im starting to think i spent TOO much time on the SAT’s…I ended up spending less time on school and now have a 3.6-3.7 UW GPA :P</p>
<p>I got a 159 on my PSAT (in tenth grade). In eleventh grade, I studied every night in the two months before the SAT and got a 2320. It’s trainable, but I guess you have to have some level of innate intelligence… I know of someone who took one practice test every day during the summer and school year and scored a 1900.</p>
<p>^If this is real, so, I am going to give you a massive round of applause for this REALLY VOLUMINOUS improvement.</p>
<p>Concerning this thread’s question, I will tell you what I believe is true.</p>
<p>First of all, SAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IQ OR INNATE INTELLIGENCE OR THIS DRIVEL.
For God has created all of us equal with the same mental capacities (except for certain people, God cure them all.) SAT has to do with one’s race, one’s environment, one’s mother language.</p>
<p>Proof is: SEE CB’s STATISTICS. Here is what you will find:
HIGHEST AVERAGES IN MATH AND WRITING = ASIANS.
HIGHEST AVERAGES IN CRITICAL READING = WHITE.</p>
<p>And by one’s environment, I mean whether your parents or the people caring for you were continuously looking after you in the school’s and studying issues. If they were, and you are always an A+ or A or rarely B, then SAT is no BIG trouble. If they weren’t and you weren’t either, then SAT is a big trouble.</p>
<p>And concerning one’s mother language, I insinuate at the fact that UNLESS YOUR MOTHER LANGUAGE IS ENGLISH OR YOU WERE BORN IN A HOUSE SPEAKING ENGLISH ALONG WITH AN ANOTHER LANGUAGE, YOU ARE GOING TO SCREW UP IN THE SAT.
^Proof is: If you were to review Europe’s, Africa’s, Middle East’s, BLAABLAABLAA or any country other than America’s Colleges’ SAT Acceptance statistics, you were to find that EVEN THE BEST COLLEGES would need far less than 2400, something like 2200+.</p>
<p>One more thing about the environment. Countries with social or political weakness or with some type of repression do, usually, yield great kids, who are so as a result of their countries’ weakness.</p>
<p>One more thing, forgetting about the race issue, I ASSURE YOU ALL THAT SOME GREAT AND TEMPORARY DEAL OF HARD WORK CAN GET YOU GREAT MARKS.</p>
<p>ADVICE: </p>
<p>FOR MATHS: EAT THE RULES, IF YOU AREN’T A WHIZ, DON’T WORRY. THOUGH YOU MIGHT, INITIALLY, SUFFER, YOU WILL STILL GET GOOD MARKS.</p>
<p>FOR WRITING: DO PERFECTLY ACCOMPLISH A LOT OF GRAMMATICAL RULES.</p>
<p>FOR READING: I CAN TELL YOU THAT 3500 SAT WORDS CAN GET YOU THE 19 SENTENCE COMPLETION CORRECT OR AT LEAST WON’T GET YOU STUMBLING INTO ANONYMOUS WORDS.</p>
<p>FINALLY, A LOT OF TIMEDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD PRACTICE WOULD GET THE WORK DONE, FOR YOU, BUT NOT FOR ME.
YOU MIGHT NOT NECESSARILY GET A BEAUTIFUL AND DULCET 2400.</p>
<p>P.S.: SORRY, for worrying you and speaking too much.</p>
<p>^do u know how to read and write english? yes i meant YOU</p>
<p>Not all depends on preparation. Although I’ve done over a 25 SAT timed practice tests, I assume that my December scores would be lower than those I was getting on practice tests. Being a 15 year old international student, I couldn’t fought the panic I had on the real exam.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s not terribly disparate: 2300 is at the 99.6th percentile among college-bound students, whereas 136 is at about the 99th percentile among the general population. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s factually inaccurate. The SAT positively correlates strongly with IQ scores; the correlation is, however, imperfect, as is the case with all real-world variables. The correlation is also weakened for international test-takers, who often have relatively limited exposure to English. Blocking the results by race and socioeconomic status would likely increase the already-strong SAT-IQ correlation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is evidentially contradicted.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Those are relevant factors but are not the only factors. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is so blanket as to be clearly false.</p>